Archived: Opika Care Ltd

In July 2016 the Commission was made aware that serious allegations had been made about the way in which Opika Care Ltd was being managed and that these matters were being investigated by the police. This investigation is on-going and we will continue to liaise with the provider and police on this matter until an outcome is reached.

The Commission carried out a focused inspection on 17 and 23 August 2016, this inspection sought to consider how effective the day to day management of the service was in light of the allegations made and whether people were receiving safe care and support. This report only covers our findings in relation to those topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Opika Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

This service is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the service was supporting 13 people.

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The Commission was not satisfied that the operational and managerial arrangements in place were sufficient to ensure that people received safe and consistent care. We found that despite restrictions being placed on the managerial role of the provider, they remained central to the day to day provision of care and we considered that this was having a direct impact on the protection of people using this service.

There was a lack of supportive managerial arrangements in place; staffing arrangements were chaotic and disorganised. Although people were receiving care and support; there was no planned rota for the staff to follow and people did not know in advance who would be supporting them.

Record systems were fragmented and could not be relied upon. It was difficult to gain a clear picture of the care and support that people needed or of the associated costs. Care plans were unreliable and staff were being verbally instructed by the provider in all aspects of the care and support that people needed.

The culture was closed and inward looking; issues raised were not dealt with in an open or transparent way and this was exposing people to unnecessary risk. The provider had failed to inform the Commission of significant and notifiable events and had failed to implement safe and effective management of the service. This coupled with the restrictions placed on the provider’s managerial role meant that people using this service were being exposed to on-going risk and as such the Commission has taken action to protect them.

Our inspection was carried out by two inspectors who visited the service on 9 and 10 July 2014.At the time of our inspection 12 people were using the service of this domiciliary care agency. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. With their permission we visited one person in their own home and we spoke with two other people by telephone. We spoke with relatives or representatives of three other people. We also spoke with the service provider and four members of staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the agency which included, care plans, daily care records, staff training records and staff files. We also looked at records relating to the monitoring and assessment of the quality of the service.

During our inspection of Opika Care Ltd we set out to answer our five questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We found that people's needs had been appropriately assessed before they were provided with domiciliary care support. We saw documentary evidence of this in the 12 care files we looked at. This meant that staff had the information they needed about people's care needs and were able to provide safe care. However we also found that some staff that did not have English as their first language were not able to tell us how they would respond to an emergency, for example staff told us that they would ring the provider. They were also unable to correctly tell us the telephone number for the emergency services.

Is the service effective?

We saw that individualised care plans and risk assessments were in place; however we noted that some risk assessments had not been reviewed in a timely way which would ensure that people were supported in an effective way. We saw that staff files held the certificates of courses attended; however, the provider was not able to tell us when the courses had taken place or the duration of the course. We found that some staff had received supervision. We could not find any evidence that annual staff appraisals had been completed.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with staff that were clearly enjoying their role in caring for people. We spoke with people and their relatives and representatives and they told us that the staff were very caring and that they had 'gone above and beyond' what was expected of them.

Is the service responsive?

Assessments included identifying any risks to people and detailing how staff should care for people to support their safety and well-being. This meant that care and support had been provided in accordance with peoples wishes. We read that when people had become unwell the GP, district nurse or family members had been contacted promptly so that assessment or treatment could be given.

Is the service well led?

The registered manager was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of our inspection. The provider who is currently providing care and support to people is managing the service until a new registered manager can be appointed.

We asked the provider for copies of any audits that had been completed, for example of care plans. The provider was unable to provide any evidence that audits of the service had been completed. This meant that the provider did not have an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

The comments people made about the quality of their service included 'excellent', 'very caring and considerate', and 'reliable'. All the people we spoke with were very happy with the service.

We found that that people experienced a safe, reliable and effective service that they could count upon to meet their needs.